Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(3)SC562; (1998)IMLJ8(SC); 1997(2)SCALE741; (1997)5SCC185; [1997]2SCR980
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 40 of 1970 - Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vaduj, is the appellant herein. His father one Shripati executed a possessory mortgage if the suit property, R.S. No. 244/23 situate at Lalgun Taluka Khatav, Distt. Satara, by Exhibit 35A dated 3.4.1947 for Rs. 1,200/- in favour of the first respondent, (1st defendant), Bapu Ganpati Jagtap. Pending this appeal, first respondent died on 1.6.1985. His three sons Nivruti Bapusaheb Katkar (Jagtap) Dhyandev Bapusaheb Katkar (Jagtap) and Sahelrao Bapusaheb Katkar (Jagtap) have been implicated as his legal representatives. The second respondent Laxmi Devi Shripati Nale is the appellant's mother. Exhibit 35A mortgage was for a period of 12 years. The mortgagee was to take the income of the property and appropriate the same towards the interest due etc. Appellant's father did in 1953. The appellant was a minor then. The mortgage could not be redeemed within the period fixed. After the expiry of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1973; (1997)139CTR(SC)442; [1997]224ITR635(SC); JT1997(3)SC692; (1997)4SCC677; [1997]2SCR991
ORDERSuhas C. Sen, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court disposing of an Income Tax Reference relating to assessments of the Assessment Years 1963-64 to 1967-68. 2. The following questions of law had been referred to the High Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal:1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law, in holding that Meera & Co. is a body of individuals and is assessable as such? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment of the body of individuals identified as Meera & Co. should be made under Section 4 read with Section 2 (31)(v) and not under Section 160, 161 or 166?3. The High Court has given brief summary of the relevant facts as under:Shri Prem Narain, an individual, carried on business under the name M/s. Meera & Co. at Ludhiana. He died intestate on August 25, 1962 survived by his mo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2033; 1997(3)ALLMR(SC)224; JT1997(3)SC555; 1997(2)SCALE611; (1997)9SCC229; [1997]2SCR970; 1997(1)LC727(SC)
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. This application has been filed by the petitioner in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 16184 of 1996 which was dismissed at the administration stage on 26th August, 1996. While dismissing the special leave petition, this Court had given six months' time for the applicant to vacate the premises and deliver vacant possession to the respondent-landlord. It was specified that the said six months will expire on 26th February, 1997. The applicant was also directed to file the usual undertaking within four weeks - which he did. The applicant says that in view of the subsequent legislation, namely, the Maharashtra Ordinance No. 23 of 1996 (which has been later enacted into an Amendment Act) amending the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1997 (Bombay Rent Act), The Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 and the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955, creating the statutory relationship of landlord and tenant between the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2041; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)819; 1997CriLJ2248; 1997(1)Crimes275(SC); JT1997(4)SC84; RLW1997(1)SC165; 1997(2)SCALE687; (1997)4SCC393; [1997]2SCR933
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard the learned Counsel.3. On 11.5.91, one Purushottam Wasudeo Deshpande lodged a complaint at the Dhantoli Police Station, Nagpur that his two young daughters, Hema and Meera were kidnapped by Priya Sharan Maharaj (Respondent No. 1) with the help of Suhasini (Respondent No. 6) and Sharwari Devi (Respondent No. 7). On the basis of this report an offence was registered under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. Investigation of that offence disclosed that Kripalu Maharaj (Respondent No. 2), who claims to be a spiritual teacher and has his Ashrams at Vrindavan and Mangadh, is a highly immoral person and in order to satisfy his lust he, with the help of his disciples, including Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 7, used to entice young girls and have sexual intercourse with them against their wish. Respondent No. 2, through his disciples, used to impress upon the young girls that he is the incarnation of Lord Krishna, that they should treat him as their husband and tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1849; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)825; 1997CriLJ1916; JT1997(3)SC406; 1997(2)SCALE594; (1997)10SCC102
S.P. Kurdukar, J.1. A small village called Anterweli in Tehsil Gangakhed Distt. Parbhani on June 4, 1982 at about 2.00 p.m. witnessed the gruesome murders of three brothers, namely, Hari, Govinda & Limbaji, sons of Tuljiram Ghobale, and Narayan son of Bapu Tayade who happened to be their nephew (sister's son) at the hands of a riotous mob of nearly forty Wanjari people residing in the same village. In the said rioting incident, apart from four deaths, as many as six persons, namely, Sopan (PW 2), Kondabai (PW 6), Bapu (PW 7), Phul Chand (PW 8), Kundlik (PW 21) and Vithal (PW 22)-the complainant had sustained serious injuries. The deceased persons and injured witnesses belonged to Budha community whereas most of the accused persons numbering forty belonged to Wanjari community. In substance, the members of Wanjari community had attacked the members of Budha community.2. The members of the Wanjari community of village Anterweli firmly believed that the members of Budha community were inv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2179; 1997(2)ALT26(SC); JT1997(3)SC736; 1997(3)SCALE103; (1997)4SCC283; [1997]2SCR915
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. This special leave petition has been filed against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, made on July 8, 1996 made in O.A. No. 879/93.3. Admittedly, the petitioner, having acquired Diploma in Engineering, had applied for and stood selected as Technician. The vacancies notified were 480. His ranking on merit is 779. Since he was not appointed to the post, he filed the O.A. in the Tribunal. It was contended that while he was looking forward to his appointment in accordance with the selection instead of making the appointment the authorities issued notification for fresh recruitment, thus, defeating the right of the petitioner and others similarly situated. Therefore, direction to the respondent-authorities to appoint him, as per his ranking in the select list for the year 1989 was sought. Stay of fresh recruitment till the said list got exhausted, was also sought. The Tribunal has dismissed the petition holding that mere putting a candidate in the sel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2126; JT1997(4)SC92; (1997)ILLJ1071SC; 1997(3)SCALE107; (1997)5SCC152; [1997]2SCR910
1. Since respondent No. 1, it is reported, has refused to receive the notice, it must be deemed to be sufficient notice. Respondent Nos. 5 and 7 have been served. But they are appearing neither in person nor through counsel.2. Leave granted.3. Since the respondents are appearing neither in person nor through counsel, we have taken the assistance of Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and gone through the relevant rules and orders of appointment. The admitted position is that respondent No. 1 came to be appointed on June 10, 1992 against a clear vacancy with the following stipulation :Your appointment is purely temporary for a period of 11 months from 11.6.1992 to 10.5.1993 in the clear vacancy. After expiry of the above period your service shall stand terminated without any notice.4. Thus, it could be seen that the appointment of the first respondent was only a temporary appointment against a clear vacancy. The appointments are regulated and controlled by the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2248; JT1997(4)SC169; (1997)IILLJ154SC; 1997(3)SCALE226; (1997)4SCC422; [1997]2SCR930
ORDER1. The petitioner was promoted as Inspector of Police on July 10,1973 and was further promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police on April 8, 1982. The contesting respondents were directly recruited as Deputy Superintendents on March 25, 1982. Their inter-se seniority is regulated by Rule 25 of the Mizoram Police Service Rules, 1986. Rules 25 reads as under :25. Seniority - The Administrator shall prepare a list of members of the Service arranged in order of seniority as determined in the manner specified below:(i)(a) Persons recruited on the results of the competitive examination in any year shall be ranked Inter se in the order of merit in which they are placed at the competitive examination on the results of which they are recruited, those recruited on the basis of an earlier examination being ranked senior to those recruited on the basis of a later examination.(b) The relative seniority inter se of persons recruited by selection shall be determined on the basis of the order in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1367; 1997(2)ALT20(SC); JT1997(3)SC447; (1997)2MLJ47(SC); 1997(2)SCALE685; (1997)4SCC62; 1997(1)LC508(SC)
ORDERSujata V. Manohar, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India filed some time in May 1993 by the original petitioner Daljit Singh Dalal in person. It is said that this petition is in public interest. The original petitioner died soon after the filing of the petition. The son of the original petitioner, Bajrang Singh (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner'), has argued the present petition as a party in person.2. Although the petitioner Bajrang Singh claims to be a lawyer, the petition does not set out either the facts or the contentions very clearly. Apparently, the disputed premises belonging to the original petitioner and his family members consist of Premises Nos. 2505, 2506 and 2670, Basti Punjabian, Subzi Mandi, Delhi. According to the petitioner, on 13th of May, 1993, portions of House No. 2670 were demolished by the Municipal Corporation. According to the petitioner his father, (that is to say the original petitioner), his daughter, daug...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2185; JT1997(4)SC159; (1997)IILLJ109SC; 1997(3)SCALE104; (1997)9SCC248; [1997]2SCR913
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal arises from the Judgment and order made on 20.11.91 by the High Court of Patna in CWJC No. 6073 of 1991.3. The specific case set up by the first respondent is that he was working in the Irrigation Department as a permanent employee holding a lien in that post. Subsequently he was transferred along with others to the Bihar State Water Development Corporation the appellant. It is an admitted position that the said Corporation has been wound up. Consequently, instead of termination of the services of the employees working in the Corporation, an attempt was made to have them accommodated in different Departments. The first respondent was sent to the Finance Department which he had challenged. His specific case is that he was still having a lien on the post he hold in the Irrigation Department. That was not controverted in the High Court by filing an affidavit. No contra evidence has been placed before us also.4. The contention of the Corporation and the...
Tag this Judgment!